Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Syrian foreign minister says Syria will declare its chemical weapons arsenal, sign chemical weapons convention. Thanks Obama   (gawker.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Syrians, foreign ministers, chemical weapons arsenal, Syrian foreign minister, Secretary of State John Kerry, chemical weapons, arsenals  
•       •       •

1154 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2013 at 6:22 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



263 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-09-10 09:42:08 PM  

CanisNoir: Fart_Machine: I'm sure Putin would totally have made this proposal if we hadn't made a stink about it. After all a few weeks ago he denied Syria even used chemical weapons.

We didn't "make a stink about it" - John Kerry responded to an ABC reporters question by exasperatedly and jokingly saying that Asaad could avoid military action by giving up all his weapons within a week but that he would never do it. The state department then immediately came out and said "by the way, he wasn't making an offer he was being rhetorical" and Kerry called the Russians saying "Hey, I was just joking."

Putin and Asaad called their bluff and it is a win\win for Russia and Obama comes out looking only moderately foolish while weakening our position in them Middle East and ceding some of that position to Russia. Putin gets what he wants, Asaad left in power (in fact Asaad, today, carried out damaging air strikes against rebel positions where before the planes had been grounded fearing an American attack) and Putin becomes the major Actor and player in the region. You realize that part of Putins offer includes a resolution on our part not to use military action against Syria.

So you've got the government that probably sold the weapons to Asaad in the first place saying they're gonna look after them, you've got the Government that's been beating the war drums heavy and hard for two weeks now, suddenly going "well, we don't *really* need to punish him, just getting the chemical weapons is enough" and now you've got the Rebels, who we're training and arming, suddenly faced with unrestrained attacks by Asaad and left on their own.

This whole thing was bungled and amateurish, there's no way Obama can claim a win out of this, at best he can claim that he didn't lose as big as he could have.


I would say threatening military action would be quite the stink. And if Russia and Syria wanted to "call our bluff" they would have waited for the vote to go to Congress. Since they didn't and decided to broker a deal it looks like they took the threat seriously.
 
2013-09-10 09:57:29 PM  

udhq: justaguy516: Anybody else think that Kerry should be fired now?

On what grounds?


Being the Secretary of State to a black man.
 
2013-09-10 10:03:31 PM  

udhq: justaguy516: Anybody else think that Kerry should be fired now?

On what grounds?


Giving Assad an out?  Putin an opportunity to look like a deal maker? Smoking the stock prices of all those military suppliers?
 
2013-09-10 10:04:54 PM  
images.nationalgeographic.com

Thanks Putin
 
2013-09-10 10:05:35 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Except that Obama spoke to Putin regarding this solution way back at the G20 summit.  It sounds like there was a plan in the works to me.


they may have spoken about a diplomatic solution in general terms, but there was no specific plan made at the g20 summit like you suggest. the syria deal was completely unexpected. kerry, white house staffers, and the state department have all said so.

did you see that obama did 6 interviews yesterday with all the major networks? did you watch his speech just now? obama was supposed to make the case for why congress had to vote for an authorization of force in syria -- that was the plan. instead, his big action item was to put the vote on hold -- that was the response to an unexpected turn of events. one of the running jokes in the news cycle today was that obama speechwriters were scrambling to rewrite the speech around the late-breaking developments regarding this potential deal. it makes no sense that these changes had to be worked in if the plan all along was what we're seeing play out.

like i said, there was no master plan, just a lucky break.
 
2013-09-10 10:20:06 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-10 10:37:02 PM  

sendtodave: skullkrusher: sendtodave: Really, I'm confused.

Just a few days ago I was called a right wing fascist for not supporting Obama's drums for war. That was confusing enough. Now that US military action have been, thankfully, diverted, I'm reading that it is Obama's master stroke or something. Which is more confusing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad of the outcome. But I though we had to go save those poor people, or something?

Is this just a case of shills gonna shill?

Transdimensional chess. He plays it with both hands at once.

I'm more questioning the support. And the weird rationalizations.

"We should go to war." "Right on! Flex your muscles, Obama!"

"Never mind." "Brilliant! Way to outfox them, Obama! We never wanted war at all!"


Yeah, pretty sure you're thinking about a strawman. I think it was more like going from:
"Going to war would suck, but we have to ensure that Syria stops using CW."

To:
"Awesome, we get to avoid war and Syria stops using CW."
 
2013-09-10 10:40:10 PM  
assad was lying about even having WMD. then he lied about using CW.

now he is lying about stopping production of CW and turning over current stockpiles and disclosing locations of storage.

he has bought himself a bunch of time just so obama can pretend to save face over his red line crap.

i dont support intervention, but let's not be naieve that assad is going to give up his wmd.
 
2013-09-10 10:42:44 PM  

jpo2269: This is a brilliant move by both Putin and Assad.  Assad declares HIS chemical weapons, allowing Russia (?) to store them out of control of Syria; all this knowing any WMD's declared can be replaced by the Iraqi WMDs transferred to Syria 10 years ago, thus living up to his word and still having a chemical arsenal..

Winning!

//Should the transfer of WMDs take place, this probably is the best we can hope for in this situation.. IMO.


Dude, you do know that CWs don't last forever, right? That they have a half life, which is, more or less, the scientific way of saying they have an expiration date? Any sarin or VX that could have come from Iraq would be well past the "use by" date by now, and pretty much rendered inert.

/farking science, how does it work?
 
2013-09-10 10:46:11 PM  

Dinki: another cultural observer: Bashar Assad has surely learned his lesson, and will elevate the Kremlin from "speed dial" to "special red phone" whenever he's confronted with international outcry.

Right, because before this Syria and Russia were barely speaking and now they are BFFs.


Speed dial hardly denotes "barely speaking"....Are you foreign?
 
2013-09-10 10:47:37 PM  
and further, assad and the rebels have discovered that the world has no will to interfere the next time they decide to use CW.

Seriously, the tokyo subway atacks demonsrrated that sarin is easy to make and not much is required to do real damage. all assad has to do is turn over 60% of his stockpile and say that's all he has. he doesn't need that much anyway to kill a bunch of civilians.
 
2013-09-10 10:48:48 PM  

sno man: udhq: justaguy516: Anybody else think that Kerry should be fired now?

On what grounds?

Giving Assad an out?  Putin an opportunity to look like a deal maker? Smoking the stock prices of all those military suppliers?


How much face do you think he has lost in Israel and Palestine? He makes an offhand suggestion, his own staff walks it back as a rhetoric (funny how everybody has forgotten that part), his president contradicts him public, he talks about 'unbelievably tiny' strikes?
 
2013-09-10 10:51:24 PM  

sno man: udhq: justaguy516: Anybody else think that Kerry should be fired now?

On what grounds?

Giving Assad an out?  Putin an opportunity to look like a deal maker? Smoking the stock prices of all those military suppliers?


If all this was all pre-planned 11 dimensional chess, why didn't Obama wait till his own speech to make a big announcement and catch everybody by surprise? Why use Kerry and that too, in such a peculiar half-baked manner? Apparently it was all discussed and agreed with the Russians in advance.
 
2013-09-10 10:57:06 PM  

CanisNoir: Meanwhile, military strikes are *completely* off the table for the foreseeable future because Putin is making that part of his initial offer; sure we're going to negotiate on that, but Asaad doesn't have to worry about it while we're negotiating, so effectively, he now has carte blanche to do what he pleases.


Except use CW..
 
2013-09-10 11:00:36 PM  
Republicans really are upset by this. They so wanted to see dead American soldiers on the news so that they could shove it in Obama's face and now it's (most likely) not going to happen. And they can't stand it. Want proof? Just look at the way the right wingers are handling themselves in this thread, unable to appreciate that there might be a solution that doesn't involve the military.

Any way you cut it, whether Obama's a foreign policy genius or whether he merely stumbled on this solution, it's a good outcome to a shiatty situation. Not perfect, nobody's going to argue that it's perfect (but what in this world ever is), but it's pretty much the best outcome anyone could have hoped for. Putin gets to take credit for disarming and dismantling Assad's CW stockpiles, Assad doesn't get the shiat liberated out of him (apologies to whomever originally posted that upthread, but that's too good not to borrow), and the US gets to avoid another military excursion in the Middle East; it's a win-win-win.

/Serious about the "get the shiat liberated out of them" line, totally gonna be using that in conversation tomorrow.
//I'd look up whomever said it, but I'm farking fom my phone and it's kind of a hassle on the mobile site (ie, I'm drunk as a skunk).
 
2013-09-10 11:02:12 PM  

voristrupp: he has bought himself a bunch of time just so obama can pretend to save face over his red line crap.


Brilliant! It's obvious that the only reason Assad is doing this is so Obama can save face. I can't believe I didn't see it before.
 
2013-09-10 11:06:39 PM  

justaguy516: sno man: udhq: justaguy516: Anybody else think that Kerry should be fired now?

On what grounds?

Giving Assad an out?  Putin an opportunity to look like a deal maker? Smoking the stock prices of all those military suppliers?

How much face do you think he has lost in Israel and Palestine?


None. and Less than none respectively.

He makes an offhand suggestion, his own staff walks it back as a rhetoric (funny how everybody has forgotten that part), his president contradicts him public, he talks about 'unbelievably tiny' strikes?

yea and?  Obama gets to back off his red line, without looking too bad, Kerry gets to take credit for being the first to say it, Putin gets to say it was his idea and not get into a proxy war they can't afford. And like it or not, Assad at the moment is relatively stabilizing Syria.  There are too many factions all wanting some of the pie, until the rebels can unite, or one faction steps up, removing Assad would leave too big a vacuum.  And an even uglier war.
 
2013-09-10 11:08:13 PM  

voristrupp: and further, assad and the rebels have discovered that the world has no will to interfere the next time they decide to use CW.

Seriously, the tokyo subway atacks demonsrrated that sarin is easy to make and not much is required to do real damage. all assad has to do is turn over 60% of his stockpile and say that's all he has. he doesn't need that much anyway to kill a bunch of civilians.


So let's bomb them anyway, is what you're saying?

Are you for going to war with Syria, or just pissed that we're NOT?
 
2013-09-10 11:10:50 PM  

justaguy516: sno man: udhq: justaguy516: Anybody else think that Kerry should be fired now?

On what grounds?

Giving Assad an out?  Putin an opportunity to look like a deal maker? Smoking the stock prices of all those military suppliers?

If all this was all pre-planned 11 dimensional chess, why didn't Obama wait till his own speech to make a big announcement and catch everybody by surprise? Why use Kerry and that too, in such a peculiar half-baked manner? Apparently it was all discussed and agreed with the Russians in advance.


I'm sure none of it was pre-planned but more like hey look lemons... lets make lemonade. And EVERYONE was thirsty.
 
2013-09-10 11:14:39 PM  

Gyrfalcon: voristrupp: and further, assad and the rebels have discovered that the world has no will to interfere the next time they decide to use CW.

Seriously, the tokyo subway atacks demonsrrated that sarin is easy to make and not much is required to do real damage. all assad has to do is turn over 60% of his stockpile and say that's all he has. he doesn't need that much anyway to kill a bunch of civilians.

So let's bomb them anyway, is what you're saying?

Are you for going to war with Syria, or just pissed that we're NOT?


I think he's pissed that he can't be pissed about Obama bombing Syria.
 
2013-09-10 11:43:09 PM  
i do not support bombing syria or war with syria.
i do not think the US should be in this mess at all especially since the other side is al queda.

however, it is incredibly naieve to think assad is suddenly going to find jesus and come clean and disclose his CW stockpiles.

i mean, he has lied all along about having them and about using them. lying doesn't bother him, gassing his own people doesn't either.

syria's intermal conflicts are none of our concern, but in no way is this a solution.


obama loves the idea because he doesn't have to follow through on his threats.

assad loves the idea because it buys him time, he gets to lie about his CW stockpiles, and stonewall inspectors until he needs to gas someone again.

i just want for us to not be stupid enough to think this guy is going to turn over his CWs.
 
2013-09-10 11:43:18 PM  
I am astounded by the amount of stupidity of many of the posts in this thread.  I really don't know what to say other than that.

Yeah I know.  Welcome to fark.

/several of you have read between the lines pretty well...so kudos.  Special kudos to the brainiacs who are in favor of having the UN be in control of WMD during a civil war...great work there.
 
2013-09-10 11:44:13 PM  
i'm sure assad is also pleased that he got away with using chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-10 11:53:15 PM  
And by "great", I mean "if you want to get laughed out of the room" great.
 
2013-09-10 11:53:25 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The White House may really be about to win on Syria

vs

Don't get your hopes up. Syria might be adopting the North Korea playbook.


North Korea Does not have the Russian Fleet parked on their doorstep.
 
2013-09-10 11:56:06 PM  

justanothersumguy: Dusk-You-n-Me: The White House may really be about to win on Syria

vs

Don't get your hopes up. Syria might be adopting the North Korea playbook.

North Korea Does not have the Russian Fleet parked on their doorstep.


And Syria does?
 
2013-09-10 11:57:36 PM  
Well we could really confirm that they could satasify our request in a timely or sufficient manor...here comes a bomb, boom biatches
 
2013-09-11 12:04:06 AM  
I am not going to sleep tonight.  The questions remains...do you want real, no shiat, results in lessening the threat?  We can wait...let the UN attempt to secure every last CW in Syria without the security necessary to do so, while they build a CW destruction facility and secure chain of custody of the munitions the entire time.   During a civil war.

Or the other thing.

The laws of war....their is one law of war.....WIN.
 
2013-09-11 12:05:05 AM  
Their=there...sorry...
 
2013-09-11 12:16:04 AM  

vygramul: justanothersumguy: Dusk-You-n-Me: The White House may really be about to win on Syria

vs

Don't get your hopes up. Syria might be adopting the North Korea playbook.

North Korea Does not have the Russian Fleet parked on their doorstep.

And Syria does?


Uh, yes. Russia's only Mediterranean naval base is in Syrian territory. It is one of the main reasons the Russians are so invested in this situation.
 
2013-09-11 12:25:42 AM  
The OPCW and the UN are totally unprepared to accomplish this supposed mission to secure and destroy Syrian CW.  End of story.  And to anyone who points to the UN as some beacon of solution to world politics, I have found them to be nothing but a hindrance in every respect.  Real world.  Not a surprise.
 
2013-09-11 12:27:08 AM  

JohnnyBravo: I am not going to sleep tonight.  The questions remains...do you want real, no shiat, results in lessening the threat?  We can wait...let the UN attempt to secure every last CW in Syria without the security necessary to do so, while they build a CW destruction facility and secure chain of custody of the munitions the entire time.   During a civil war.

Or the other thing.

The laws of war....their is one law of war.....WIN.


Ummm, we're going to let Russia attempt to secure and destroy Syria's CW stockpile. And Syria pretty much has no choice but to do as Putin says. Russia's basically their only source of weapons/ammunition and they are in the middle of a civil war; reneging on this deal would mean suicide for the Assad regime.

And it's not like Russia doesn't have experience helping other countries dispose of their nuclear/chemical weapons, look at all the times they did this for former Soviet states after the Cold War ended.
 
2013-09-11 12:36:09 AM  
Ummm, (if I can respectfully disagree), we will not allow "the Russians" to solely secure and destroy the Syrian CW stockpile.  Will not happen.  It can only be politically done via the UN and OPCW.  The Russians are good at CW...75% of their stockpile is destroyed under OPCW inspection.  We are good at CW too...I dont have time to wear my fingers to the nub to prove that I know.

The Russians have run rings around the State Dept on this.  No doubt about it.  Putin and his friends are very skilled at world diplonacy.  It is embarrassing.
 
2013-09-11 12:46:05 AM  

glmorrs1: JohnnyBravo: I am not going to sleep tonight.  The questions remains...do you want real, no shiat, results in lessening the threat?  We can wait...let the UN attempt to secure every last CW in Syria without the security necessary to do so, while they build a CW destruction facility and secure chain of custody of the munitions the entire time.   During a civil war.

Or the other thing.

The laws of war....their is one law of war.....WIN.

Ummm, we're going to let Russia attempt to secure and destroy Syria's CW stockpile. And Syria pretty much has no choice but to do as Putin says. Russia's basically their only source of weapons/ammunition and they are in the middle of a civil war; reneging on this deal would mean suicide for the Assad regime.

And it's not like Russia doesn't have experience helping other countries dispose of their nuclear/chemical weapons, look at all the times they did this for former Soviet states after the Cold War ended.


Plus, if Syria openly obstructs inspectors or is stupid enough to use CWs again the case for strikes and even regime-change has become much, much stronger.

Make no mistake, Assad has no choice but to cooperate to the satisfaction of the international community. If Assad backs out congress and even Russia will essentially have no choice but to consent to strikes.

This deal absolutely ends the threat of Assad using CWs again. As such, it is a big blow to his capability to fight the civil war.
 
2013-09-11 12:56:25 AM  

max_pooper: Gyrfalcon: voristrupp: and further, assad and the rebels have discovered that the world has no will to interfere the next time they decide to use CW.

Seriously, the tokyo subway atacks demonsrrated that sarin is easy to make and not much is required to do real damage. all assad has to do is turn over 60% of his stockpile and say that's all he has. he doesn't need that much anyway to kill a bunch of civilians.

So let's bomb them anyway, is what you're saying?

Are you for going to war with Syria, or just pissed that we're NOT?

I think he's pissed that he can't be pissed about Obama bombing Syria.


In fairness, he DID spoil the chances of complaining bitterly about how badly Hillary and wimminfolk do in the Big Chair. He single handed derailed nearly a generation of attack ads that were planned, so there is that. That's a lot of rage to displace, after about 20 years of waiting...
 
2013-09-11 12:58:04 AM  

JohnnyBravo: Ummm, (if I can respectfully disagree), we will not allow "the Russians" to solely secure and destroy the Syrian CW stockpile.  Will not happen.  It can only be politically done via the UN and OPCW.  The Russians are good at CW...75% of their stockpile is destroyed under OPCW inspection.  We are good at CW too...I dont have time to wear my fingers to the nub to prove that I know.

The Russians have run rings around the State Dept on this.  No doubt about it.  Putin and his friends are very skilled at world diplonacy.  It is embarrassing.


I should have been more clear, the current deal on the table is that Syria put their CW stockpile under international control, which does mean the UN, but headed up by Russia in particular because of their relationship and close proximity to Syria, and their experience with such things. Yeah, we've got experience with this stuff too, but we are half a world away.

Don't know what you mean by they've "run rings around the State Dept" or what's so embarrassing about this, though. Every indication is that Obama and Putin discussed this very resolution at the G20 summit.
 
2013-09-11 12:59:43 AM  
Question:  Is it the assuption that our "stirikes" will remove the CW threat entirelly?
 
2013-09-11 01:04:48 AM  

max_pooper: Gyrfalcon: voristrupp: and further, assad and the rebels have discovered that the world has no will to interfere the next time they decide to use CW.

Seriously, the tokyo subway atacks demonsrrated that sarin is easy to make and not much is required to do real damage. all assad has to do is turn over 60% of his stockpile and say that's all he has. he doesn't need that much anyway to kill a bunch of civilians.

So let's bomb them anyway, is what you're saying?

Are you for going to war with Syria, or just pissed that we're NOT?

I think he's pissed that he can't be pissed about Obama bombing Syria.


I think this puts the hammer squarely on the nail. I wonder how many premature ejaculations turned into a nasty case of blue balls at the sudden realization that they weren't going to be able to use pictures of dead Syrians against the Democratic candidate in 2014...and how bad some people were going to look at (again) being spotlighted as the warmongering death-lovers they most obviously are.
 
2013-09-11 01:19:24 AM  

JohnnyBravo: Question:  Is it the assuption that our "stirikes" will remove the CW threat entirelly?


Short answer: if you mean 'destroy the CW's entirely,' then no.
Long answer: the strikes would probably be something like Desert Fox. That is, a day or two of targeted strikes against any known CW stockpiles or manufacturing sites and strikes against Assad's intelligence and secret police facilities as well as selected high value military targets like comms facilities and armories and that sort of thing. The point is not to destory the CWs. Rather, it's to make Assad know that the use of CWs confers no strategic advantage and in fact brings down a disproprotionate rain of hell on his capacity to govern and wage his civil war. The effect of that will absolutely be the removal of the CW threat.

/Provided the strikes do not make Assad's regime collapse overnight, dispersing the remaining CWs into the hand of unpredictable elements in the rebellion.
 
2013-09-11 01:19:49 AM  

JohnnyBravo: Question:  Is it the assuption that our "stirikes" will remove the CW threat entirelly?


No, I don't think anyone in the world is prepared to make that statement (other than maybe a few strawmen in some republican's arguments). Besides, did you see the President's speech earlier? The assumption is that the strikes would deter Assad from firing them again, not completely neutralize the threat. I don't even think that's possible with air strikes.
 
2013-09-11 01:21:24 AM  

TeamEd: JohnnyBravo: Question:  Is it the assuption that our "stirikes" will remove the CW threat entirelly?

Short answer: if you mean 'destroy the CW's entirely,' then no.
Long answer: the strikes would probably be something like Desert Fox. That is, a day or two of targeted strikes against any known CW stockpiles or manufacturing sites and strikes against Assad's intelligence and secret police facilities as well as selected high value military targets like comms facilities and armories and that sort of thing. The point is not to destory the CWs. Rather, it's to make Assad know that the use of CWs confers no strategic advantage and in fact brings down a disproprotionate rain of hell on his capacity to govern and wage his civil war. The effect of that will absolutely be the removal of the CW threat.

/Provided the strikes do not make Assad's regime collapse overnight, dispersing the remaining CWs into the hand of unpredictable elements in the rebellion.


Should have refreshed the thread before I posted, you said it way better than I did.
 
2013-09-11 01:36:26 AM  
Frankly I don't care if this was Obama's secret plan all along, Putin's plan, or dumb luck. The result Americans and the world wanted was to settle this without fighting.  Obama's line now is that this would  have never happened but for the threat of American strikes, and that that threat should remain to back up the consequences of the diplomatic process failing.   We may never know for sure, but the country would have certainly damned Obama and tarred him as another Bush, for not at least trying the peaceful way first.  American honor is preserved. The red line thing can now be walked back without repercussions.  obama can suggest he's gotten Putin off his ass to take care of his client state, like a lazy landlord finally doing something about the litterbug tenants playing music after 10 on school nights.


Obama repeated the phrase" we don't want to be the world's policemen".  I think that's right. But it's America's nature to be the World's FIREMEN. See a blaze that threatens the neighborhood, you take it out, because the civilian folks can't and they expect you to do it...
 
2013-09-11 01:50:52 AM  

JohnnyBravo: I am not going to sleep tonight.  The questions remains...do you want real, no shiat, results in lessening the threat?  We can wait...let the UN attempt to secure every last CW in Syria without the security necessary to do so, while they build a CW destruction facility and secure chain of custody of the munitions the entire time.   During a civil war.

Or the other thing.

The laws of war....their is one law of war.....WIN.


It's ok, get some rest. We'll wait. I promise you won't miss anything!
 
2013-09-11 01:53:11 AM  

TeamEd: As such, it is a big blow to his capability to fight the civil war.


That part's not really accurate. He was doing just fine without CW, thanks.
 
2013-09-11 05:14:36 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't get your hopes up. Syria might be adopting the North Korea playbook.


This.  Why do so many people naively assume that Syria will do what it says it will do?
 
2013-09-11 07:36:20 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Assad still needs to be bombed to pieces, just on principal.
Obama looks weak for not being punitive after a chemical attack.
It's pretty sad when a tin-pot freak like Assad can play the United States for a fool.


Then go kickstarter the bombing campaign, chickenhawk. Because the rest of us don't give a shiat about the Syrian Civil War.
 
2013-09-11 08:34:18 AM  

TeamEd: vygramul: justanothersumguy: Dusk-You-n-Me: The White House may really be about to win on Syria

vs

Don't get your hopes up. Syria might be adopting the North Korea playbook.

North Korea Does not have the Russian Fleet parked on their doorstep.

And Syria does?

Uh, yes. Russia's only Mediterranean naval base is in Syrian territory. It is one of the main reasons the Russians are so invested in this situation.


Ah - Syria is Russia's route to the sea.

How many Russian ships are in the Eastern Med at the moment?
 
2013-09-11 08:36:22 AM  

JohnnyBravo: Question:  Is it the assuption that our "stirikes" will remove the CW threat entirelly?


I doubt it. It's supposed to create an incentive against their use. And you strike the CW systems because it makes the message clear and maybe a little harder to use that capability. But that's the secondary goal. The primary is the disincentive.
 
2013-09-11 08:39:51 AM  

flondrix: Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't get your hopes up. Syria might be adopting the North Korea playbook.

This.  Why do so many people naively assume that Syria will do what it says it will do?


Why is it naïveté? It's been explained many times in this thread. Without Russia, Assad cannot continue his bloody civil war. The only other option his regime seems to have would be to piss off Russia, the only country who is willing to provide him with weapons/ammunition, and to invite air strikes from the US, both of which, by themselves, would weaken his position in the civil war. Disarmament is a win-win, any other decision would be inviting more trouble for an already troubled regime.
 
2013-09-11 08:43:49 AM  

ongbok: There are some real idiots in this country.

If you don't think that Kerry's statement wasn't purposely floated out there for the world to hear the US was willing to give Assad a way to end this that didn't involve Tomahawks reigning down on him and him being hunted like Saddam, then you are a fool. And yes Putin was probably involved in the planning.


I'd like to think that in some smoked filled back room at the G20, this was the scenario.  I'd like to think that. It suggests a higher level of hubris from Obama and intelligence previously not on display.

. Alas, just as there is no direct proof that Assad carried out the attacks, we will never know.
 
Displayed 50 of 263 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report